you ever notice that James joyce never looked right at the camera in photos and even when he did it looks really unnatural or clearly edited?
I have a theory that he was really cross-eyed (He often worse patches and even lenses that blurred the eye) and that's why his daughter (pictured) had the problem too.
example
does this look right to you?
i dunno i just think there's something weird about it
>>9658063
this one suddenly gave me the willies
they did it for lincoln, so it could be.
it jus aint right
there might be trickery afoot
i want to be wrong
it would explain some things about ulysses.
I haven't read finnegans wake but I have heard it's heavily inspired by his daughter.
No single problem made Joyce's eye operations, most of them on the left eye, necessary. With varying constancy between 1917 and 1941, he suffered from glaucoma, synecchia, iritis, conjunctivitis, episclerotis, retinal atrophy, and primary, secondary, and tertiary cataracts---all of them painful and incapacitating disease whose gravity and scariness no healthy-sighted person should underestimate. Iritis, in early stages it is said to give the sufferer the sensation of having gritty sand in the eye, and so it forces him into incessant, involuntary tearing and blinking whose unrelieving effect is only to exacerbate the condition. Closing the eye, far from relieving the pain, deepens it, and in severe cases, the pain radiates into the brow, the nose, the cheek, and the teeth, ultimately to bring on severe headaches (see Letters, III, 113-14). While sand can be washed out of the eye, iritis cannot. It either goes away or it doesn't, and in the latter case it can spread. Left untreated, it can ravage the affected eye entirely and overtake the second by "sympathetic infection." Advanced cases of iritis were "cured," in Joyce's day, by removing the entire eyeball. Hence the earliest of Joyce's eye operations: an iridectomy on the right eye (his "good eye") in 1917 was followed by two iridectomies on the left ("the broken window of my soul" [Letters, III, 111]).
it might be a cover-up